據彭博社6月15日報道，大型石油公司面臨的壓力越來越大，迫使許多公司承諾減少其主要化石燃料的開采。他們還警告稱，最終結果可能并不是全球排放量的減少。

　　殼牌首席執行官范伯登(Ben van Beurden)表示：“假設殼牌今天決定停止銷售汽油和柴油，這肯定會減少殼牌的碳排放，但這絲毫無助于世界碳排放的減少。對燃料的需求不會改變，人們將在其他服務站給他們的汽車和送貨卡車加油。”

　　這不是一個新的論點。從歷史上看，石油需求只會增加。長期以來，石油行業一直用這一趨勢來解釋，為什么在向清潔能源轉型的過程中需要繼續供應石油。

　　真正的風險在于，殼牌等國際石油巨頭將市場份額拱手讓給了國有石油公司，這些公司在排放報告方面不那么透明，對私人投資者的責任也不那么大。但這一次可能會有所不同，因為越來越多的人相信，石油需求峰值可能即將到來。

　　商業環境也有利于減排。公用事業公司和汽車制造商已經受益于可再生電力成本和鋰電池成本的持續下降。股東們（埃克森美孚公司就投票選出了三位有環保意識的董事）以及法院（命令殼牌在十年內減排45%）都認為，石油和天然氣公司需要整頓自己的行為，以提高盈利能力，幫助世界實現氣候目標。

　　這就是為什么石油公司把他們的論點更進一步向清潔的未來推進。范伯登表示：“我們需要與社會、政府和我們的客戶一起努力，實現全球能源系統真正有意義的改變。這種變化必須解決對碳基能源的需求，而不僅僅是它的供應。”

　　那么，石油公司該如何減少對石油的需求呢?他們至少有三個杠桿，即投資清潔技術，進入清潔能源行業，游說氣候政策。

　　普華永道(PwC)表示，作為收入的一部分，能源行業在研發方面的投入是最少的。國際能源署(IEA)的數據顯示，令人擔憂的是，就連政府在能源研發方面的支出也沒有大幅增加。要知道，為加速創新提供資金，可以加速能源轉型。

　　石油公司還可以投資清潔能源業務，如可再生發電和配電、電動汽車充電、可持續航空燃料、低碳氫和碳捕獲和封存等。

　　這不是一個簡單的轉變。以電動汽車行業為例。理想情況下，石油公司希望通過為電動汽車提供動力來彌補向內燃機汽車消耗汽油造成的收入損失。但據彭博社估計，快速充電網絡可能只占電動汽車所需能源的不到一半。此外，由于電動汽車非常高效，它們行駛相同里程所需的能量汽車不到一半。據估計，電力的利潤率通常比燃料的利潤率要小。這意味著石油公司很可能最終會減少每輛電動汽車的能源供應，并在供應的能源中獲得較低的利潤。

　　這些數據可能令人沮喪，但也不全是壞事。較早進入電動汽車充電領域的石油公司最終將獲得比為汽車提供燃料更大的市場份額。同樣也適用于可再生電力和可持續航空燃料。可再生電力可以替代天然氣發電廠，可持續航空燃料可以替代傳統燃料。

　　重要的是，低碳氫和碳捕獲技術提供了新的收入來源。一家用氫氣替代煤炭的鋼鐵制造商是一家石油公司的潛在客戶，需要幫助運輸和掩埋二氧化碳的融合性產業鏈處理公司也是一個商機。然而，這些行業剛剛起步，甚至還不存在，石油公司將不得不利用他們的游說能力來推動創造這些業務的政策。

　　投資者維權組織Follow This的創始人馬克·范·巴爾(Mark van Baal)表示：“大型石油公司的發展歷程表明，它們能夠成功地游說政府減緩減排法規。不難想象，他們會采取相反的角度，即讓人們不想要化石燃料。人們需要能源，而且越來越需要清潔能源。”

　　王佳晶 摘譯自 彭博社

　　原文如下：

　　What Oil Companies Can Do to Cut the Demand for Oil

　　Increasing pressure on major oil companies has forced many to make promises to reduce the extraction of their main fossil fuel. They also warn that the result may not be a reduction in global emissions.

　　“Imagine Shell decided to stop selling petrol and diesel today. This would certainly cut Shell’s carbon emissions,” Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden wrote on linkedIn last week. “But it would not help the world one bit. Demand for fuel would not change. People will fill up their cars and delivery trucks at other service stations.”

　　It’s not a new argument. Historically, oil demand has only gone up. It’s a trend that the industry has long used to explain why it needs to keep supplying oil even as it transitions to clean energy.

　　There’s a real risk that the market share ceded by international oil giants such as Shell goes to national oil companies, which are less transparent in reporting emissions and less accountable to private investors. But this time might be different, with a growing number of people convinced that peak oil demand may be in sight.

　　T he business environment also is conducive for cutting emissions. Utilities and automakers are benefiting already from a sustained decline in renewable electricity costs and lithium-ion batteries. Shareholders, like the ones that voted in three climate-minded directors at Exxon Mobil Corp., and courts, like the Dutch one that ordered Royal Dutch Shell Plc to cut emissions 45% this decade, are taking the view that oil and gas companies need to clean up their act to improve profitability and help the world meet climate goals.

　　That’s why oil companies are taking their argument one step further. “We need to work together, with society, governments and our customers to achieve real, meaningful change in the worldwide energy system,” van Beurden wrote. “And this change must address the demand for carbon-based energy, not just its supply.”

　　So what can an oil company do to reduce the demand for oil? They have at least three levers: invest in clean technologies, move into clean-energy businesses and lobby for climate policies.

　　As a share of revenues, the energy industry spends some of the least money on research and development, according to PwC. What’s worrying is that even government spending on energy R&D has not increased substantially, International Energy Agency data shows. Providing funds to speed up innovation could accelerate the energy transition.

　　Oil companies also can invest in clean-energy businesses, such as renewable electricity generation and distribution, electric-vehicle charging, sustainable aviation fuels, low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.

　　It’s not a straightforward switch. Take the explosion of electric vehicles, for example. Oil companies ideally would like to make up for the revenue lost from selling gasoline to internal-combustion engine cars by powering EVs instead. The trouble is that fast-charging networks are likely to be responsible for less than half the energy EVs need, according to BloombergNEF’s estimates. Also, because EVs are highly efficient, they need less than half the energy to travel the same number of miles as an ICE car. And the profit margins on electricity are typically smaller than those on fuels, according to BNEF’s Ryan Fisher. That means oil companies are likely to end up supplying less energy per EV and make lower profits on the energy they do supply.

　　The math may be discouraging, but it’s not all bad. Oil companies that get into EV charging early could end up enjoying a larger share of the market than they did serving fuel to ICE cars. Similar calculations can be made for renewable electricity, which can replace gas power plants, and sustainable aviation fuels, which replace conventional fuels.

　　Crucially, technologies such as low-carbon hydrogen and carbon capture offer new streams of revenue. A steelmaker replacing coal with hydrogen is a potential customer for an oil company. A cement company needing help to transport and bury carbon dioxide is a business opportunity. Yet these industries are nascent or don’t exist yet. That’s where oil companies will have to use their lobbying power to push for policies that will create those businesses, said BNEF’s David Doherty.

　　The history of major oil companies has shown that they can successfully lobby governments to slow down regulations to cut emissions. It’s not hard to imagine they could do the opposite, says Mark van Baal, who founded the activist-investor group Follow This. “People don’t want fossil fuels,” he said. “People want energy, and increasingly clean energy.”